Nov 4, 2015 - Lead Planner, Strategic Planning Department,. Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade,. Serbia. Assist. Prof. Dr DuÅ¡ko KuzoviÄ, Dipl.Eng.Arch.
BALKAN CITIES’ DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND PLANNING CHALLENGES – THE CASE OF BELGRADE
Dr Žaklina Gligorijević, Dipl. Eng.Arch. Lead Planner, Strategic Planning Department, Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade, Serbia Assist. Prof. Dr Duško Kuzović, Dipl.Eng.Arch. Faculty of Architecture Eastern Mediterranean University Famagusta, TRN Cyprus
Abstract: The development patterns of capital cities in the Balkans at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century serve as a base for the analyses of planning in the new era of urbanization. The capitals of the newly established, post-Yugoslav states are still overcoming the consequences of the national, political, and economic shift from the centralized to liberal market economy. At the same time, they are affected by the global processes of continuous change, crisis, and uncertainty. Since the ‘80s, traditional comprehensive planning has shown to be inert. However, it is still common in most of the Balkan states despite the significant social and economic changes and the investors’, governmental, and public discontent and criticism. There are several arguments to challenge the planning and management of these cities. The international market has been offering commercial development projects with iconic high-rises, metaphorically representing liberal economy and the Western type of city shapes and identities, and the City officials have experienced intense pressure by developers after the 2008 world economic crisis. For not being grounded in the analyses of the local market demands or long-term city plans, these ambitious proposals have been critically questioned by the public, administration, and professionals. Another type of development resulted from the urge to empower and promote the national identity, thus producing a non-contextual, historically-driven urban and architectural design. The third and the most common regional pattern appeared as a result of transitional societies lacking urban and housing policies, and land management instruments: informal settlements have rapidly risen in the whole region, shaping even the capital cities inconsistently, lowering living standards, and producing visible social and urban divide. The research question is, how should traditional Balkan cities adapt their planning practices to different development scenarios in the economically limited and socially fragile urban environment? Therefore, the challenge for the authorities and planners in the Balkan cities is to come up with appropriate planning models that include extensive collaboration of all actors in finding a sustainable development procedure, hopefully following the internationally accepted principles. Key words: Balkan cities, urban development, transition, strategic vs. comprehensive planning.
1
1. Introduction During the second half of the 20th century, the countries of the Southeast Europe experienced a specific, radically different social development in comparison to the Western European countries. The Era of socialism ended, both liteally and metaphorically, with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It marked the beginning of new processes of European integration, but also the change of political and economic systems in the countries of East and Southeast Europe and Russia, which underwent a process of decentralization and regionalization. Since then, all countries of the former Socialist Block went through the long-term political, economic, and social transformations, including the changes in population, administrative territories, size, and names. Strong states and alliances like the SSSR or SFRJ collapsed and divided into smaller nation-states, brutally competing for territories, resources, market, and international recognition. They all had to accept and adapt to new rules, i.e. the new paradigm of liberal economy. The process of change from centrally planned to free market economy is known as “transition” (Feige, 1994) and usually relates to China, Russia, former East European socialist block or some of the developing countries of Latin America or Africa (IMF, 2000, EBRD, 1994). The term also refers to trends in societies (even in the developed ones) that require excessive changes to adjust to the new global paradigm. Post-socialist societies, i.e. the population of 70 million in 23 European countries, have been providing experimental knowledge for planning theory in the recent, Urban Age (Olbrycht, 2013, Elin, 2004, Tsenkova, Nenadović-Budić, 2004, Hirt, 2007, 2009, 2015). The World Bank data show that 54% of the global population already lives in cities (76% in the EU regions),1 occupying less than 2% of the world territory while producing 70% of global GDP, CO2 emission and total waste, but using 60% of global energy.2 The inherited conservative planning practice from the mid 20th Century has been inefficient in the Balkan’s long-lasting transition, political, economic and natural disasters, massive migrations, uncontrolled consumption of resources, and domination of modern technologies. After 25 years of inertia, these cities and their planners strongly need a change of perception and the planning processes for an era in which insecurity and crisis are a constant (Elin, 2010, Foster, 2012). There cannot be a single effective planning model for the numerous urban challenges of the 21st century, since all the cities have their specific history, development procedures, goals, and tradition, and each deserve a unique approach (Mazza, 2010, Lücher, 2012). In the range from comprehensive central planning specific for the former socialist European and non-European regimes, to the strategic, project-oriented model of the liberal economies, there is a scale of acceptable models for each city or region (Davis, 2002). In this paper, we analyze the process of change by focusing on 1
http://data.worldbank.org/topic/urban-development, accessed on 01-11-2017. The Global Development Framework, https://www.habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda, accessed on 01-112017.
2
2
Belgrade as one of the major representatives of the Balkan transitional cities. By looking into Belgrade’s urban history, planning models, regulations, and the common regional development patterns, our goal is to provide a better understanding and foundation for possible planning improvements and higher quality of urban environment not only for the Balkan cities, but respectively, for global cities experiencing similar challenges in the rapidly changing urban age 1. The city of Belgrade: Historical context Political, social, and economic transition of the former Yugoslavian states was very different and more dramatic compared to that of other countries in the Eastern Block. Given its strategic geographic position on the rivers Danube and Sava for 7000 years, Belgrade has always been a part of important empires, political blocks or religious regions. Therefore, it has also been under constant pressure and continuous change. The city owes its cultural, urban, and architectural diversity to the turbulent history of the specific geographic location. Only in the past 25 years, the city has dramatically changed its role. It was the capital city of the “self-governed” state of Yugoslavia in the ’70s, the non-aligned center between the East and West European Blocks up to 1992, the capital of the only European state under the political, economic, and cultural sanctions by the UN, and the only bombarded European capital after the WWII in 1999. It became the capital city of the Republic of Serbia in 2006 and it is now in a process of accession to the European Union. These significant changes obliged governments and professionals to constantly adjust their position and practice to the new local conditions, but also to the European and global rules in order to provide a smooth passage through the socio-economic transition and prepare a high quality adjustment for joining the EU states.
Fig.1. Belgrade on two European rivers (photo:RN, 2007); Fig.2. Belgrade’s urban, architecture and landscape diversity: (photo: GZ, 2015) From the urban planning point of view, the city of Belgrade underwent substantial changes. Its current urban form was planned and built for the new capital of the Republic of Yugoslavia after the WWII, which became a successful regional capital in the ’80s. The controlled city development, not just growth, included the construction of New Belgrade, the new part of the city that as a distinct municipality hosts the population of over 200.000 today. It was envisioned as an extension of Belgrade in an architectural competition in 1922 and in several Modernists, Le Corbusier-style plans 3
between 1922 and 1962, having multiple functions from housing and green areas to governmental complexes. The construction started after the WWII for and by a new young working class enthusiastic about rebuilding not only the ruined city but a new socialist society as well (Blagojevic, 2007). Physically separated by the rivers from the Old Belgrade, the city was organized as a frame for the new political power and new political order with its new urban concept (Vale, 2008). The city of Belgrade, consisting of 17 municipalities including New Belgrade, was well organized, managed, and maintained by the public sector. In the most successful period of Yugoslav economic and social development in 1989, Belgrade economy reached the highest level of economic and social welfare so far, and it was the last year of continuous economic growth after the WWII (Gligorijevic, 2004, Hirt 2009). With the achieved theoretical and practical knowledge, cultural broadness, and good international connections, the state and the city were ready for the European integration processes more than any other country of the Eastern Block (Gligorijevic at.al, 2008, Hirt, 2009). After the first shock and acceptance of new reality of the ‘90s, the period of UN political sanctions and general stagnation, the efforts were put into understanding the processes in Europe, to analyze the current practice, and gather the lacking knowledge for the adjustment of Serbian theory, legislation, and practice (Gligorijevic 2016, Vujošević, 2004, 2010). Table.1 - Population of Belgrade 1900 - 2016 Year 1900 1910 1921 1931 1948 1953 1961 1971 1981 1991 2000 2002 2005 2006 2011 2016
City of Belgrade 69.100 90.000
634.003 731.837 942190 1.209.361 1.470.073 1.602.226 1.618.166 1.576.124 1.600.000 1.613.000 1.639.121 1.793.000
Republic of Serbia
4.819.430 5.725.912 6.527.966 6.979.154 7.642.227 8.446.591 9.313.676 7.576.837 7.516.346 7.498.001 7.440.769
Urban population
Sources: Belgrade, History of Belgrade, www.znanje.org, “Treasures from Yugoslavia”, An Encyclopedic touring guide. Serbian Censuses 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002, 2011; City of Belgrade Development Strategy, 2011, Regional Spatial Plan for Administrative Territory of Belgrade, 2004, and 2011; Statistic Annual Reports, Belgrade 1921,1931,1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002, 2005 and 2006, 2010, Statistical Yearbook of Serbia 2000, 2005, and 2010. Data in Census 1991 and 2002 is carried out only for the Central Serbia and Vojvodina, without Kosovo; 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia; The Statistical Yearbook of Belgrade 2015.
612.732 807.664 995.858 1.089.996 1.174.860 1.061.727 1.160.000 1.168.000
7.120. 666 7.076.372
The former Yugoslav republics shared a specific planning model that seemed to be more democratic and more inclusive than the numerous models of contemporary states at that time. The urban planning of Belgrade or Zagreb in the ’80s was an interesting combination of “the authentic experiences and original theoretical ideas” (Sančanin, 2008, p.247). The interdisciplinary planning in Yugoslav socialism in the ’70s and ’80s provided comprehensive ideas about what the future city should be like: general mixed-uses, sensitive to needs of the society, providing equity, accessibility, public spaces, and being environmentally friendly with lots of inter-connected green spaces. These 4
plans resembled contemporary strategic plans and mid-term urban models with priority projects that questioned the logic of pure zoning. The technology of plan making relied on urban sociology, overall analyses and research, and involvement of citizens and their ideas in the preparation phase, as done in the General urban plan of Belgrade from 1972, for example. This period of “self–managing socialism” was far more interesting for planning than the post WWII period of “scientific socialism” (Ferencak, 2016), based on the Modernist ideas and methodology offering a “frozen” picture of the future city (General urban Plan of Belgrade, 1950). During the ’70s and ‘80s, the urban planning institutions did not only provide a high quality planning, but were producing knowledge and developing urban planning discourse through publications, conferences, and public debates. The specific political circumstances of the fall of the former Yugoslavia and the war in the region in the ‘90s, resulted in unexpected changes: the city’s uncontrolled growth, economy decline, change in population, and inappropriate urban appearance. These changes occured rapidly and posed a great challenge to the authorities and planners to understand, act upon, and anticipate the future development of the city. The professional integrity and independence of planning vanished with the crisis and privatization of the planning processes and institutions (Vujošević, 2004, p.17). Urbanism was brought down to small scales, while the public and politics became the “fragmented collage of micro politics, where the dissociation of the particular, specific, and private seems to be impossible.” (Sančanin, 2008, p.148). Urban Planning is mainly related to the public sector, taking into account the expectations from governments and citizens. It is conditioned by and dependent on economic, legal, and social context, national and local tradition and heritage. Decisions about the future of cities, their development goals, organization, form, and content are the result of complex legal procedures and mediation of interests of numerous actors from all the city sectors. The complexity of planning and the number of actors participating in dilligent long–term city development and decision making is, and ought to be inertial because of the complex and long-lasting procedures. When the dynamics of change in all the elements of urban and social system burden the traditional planning process, things become even more complicated. 2. Informal construction as development path The common phenomenon in the developing world, including the SEE region in the transitional period from the late eighties and the nineties, was the informal construction that significantly changed the appearance of the cities (Fig.3). Of all the new states that emerged from the disintegration of the Former Yugoslavia, Serbia was the last to enter the transition period. The nineties were marked by the crisis, starting with political and economic UN sanctions, followed by the collapse of the national economy, social system, and political system. The society started a wide process of changes but without implementing the real market economy. Unfortunately, the last phase of this pre5
transitional period was marked by the war in Serbia, a country already impoverished, left without the most educated people, tired of long lasting autocracy, and finally, ruined by the war. For the last 25 years, Serbia has been exposed to the negative legacy of political and social disintegration, devastating regional and international conflicts, post-conflict defiances, and major structural deficits. The unfinished transition process within a hesitant democracy entailed the rapid socio-economic polarization and the high poverty and unemployment rate in the new political and economic landscape of recurring multi-sector crisis (Vujosevic, 2010). The informal (illegal, unplanned) constructing was one of the transitional products emerging from the governmental, social, economic or administrative weaknesses. The cause of Belgrade’s numerous informal settlements was the migration during the former Yugoslavia’s restructuring in the ‘90s. Most of the newcomers settled in the peripheral areas of Belgrade, as the city urgently provided the places for their families to live in. They mostly built their homes on the agricultural land or in the low-density zones, thus expanding the already vast informal sector.
Fig.3. – Belgrade’s biggest informal settlement, Kaludjerica (from http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Republika-Srpska/244804/ Bez-popusta-za-legalizaciju 2011), Fig.4. - Padina neighborhood creative architecture (Roth, Dusas, 2015) According to the UNECE Profile Study, Belgrade contributes significantly to the amount of up to 1 million informally constructed dwelling units in Serbia. The data from the General Plan of Belgrade 2021 (2003) show that 43% of the housing land use, and 22% of all building land in 10 central municipalities in Belgrade are under informal settlements, (2003) while the number of illegally built houses equaled those with the building permit in 1997 (Petrović, 2001,Vujović & Petrović, 2007). The urban planners later faced the challenge of urban regulation of these areas, while the the government had to provide necessary technical and social infrastructure for all its citizens, including those living in the informal settlements. According to statistics, 1.73 million people live in Belgrade in a total area of 323.000 ha. Belgrade is one of the rare cities in expansion in Serbia and it hosts 23.7% of the total Serbian population.3 It is also an educational, health, and cultural center, with 34.6% of population holding
3
Population statistic, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, no. 171 - year LXVI, 30-06-2016, ISSN 0353-9555
6
higher and university degree. With its share of 39.3% in the state’s GDP, 23.9% employees, and GDP index of 166.2 surpassing the Serbian average (100), Belgrade is the most developed district in Serbia (SYB–15, pp 72-75).4 The positive migration trend was present throughout the 20th century and the population doubled between 1953 and 2002. For the first time in Belgrade’s history, in 1992, the increase of population was only migration based, and the trend continued because of the economic, social or safety reasons. There were 140.662 refugees registered in Belgrade according to the official data from 1996 (UNHCR, 1996). The estimation dating from 2001 shows that 451.980 persons moved to Serbia (30.12% to Belgrade, UNHCR, 2001) because of the war and got the status of “displaced persons”. Almost every 10th person was a refugee or a displaced person (UNHCR, 1996), and most of them moved to the peripheral municipalities (14.4% of Zemun municipality population). During the same period, 106.000 predominantly young and educated Belgrade citizens permanently left the city.
Table 2 - Natural and migration increase of population, 1961-2015, Statistical yearbook of Belgrade 2015, City of Belgrade Institute for informatics and statistics https://zis.beograd.gov.rs/index.php/2013-12-09-10-22-54/85-2015.html,accessed 01-08-16
The housing policy and informal construction are directly tied within the national legal frame. The relatively consistent, centralized model of housing provision of former Yugoslavia, once among the top political priorities of the socialist welfare state, abruptly collapsed and gave way to the marketbased, small scale ad-hoc housing programs, while the existing social housing stock went through a massive privatization (Tsenkova, 2009). Although the Serbian Housing Act from 1992 determined purposeful use of funds gathered from the privatization of the public housing stock, the hyperinflation of the late 1992 and early 1993 had deflated 98% of the collected funds (Petrović, 2004). Serbia did not accumulate resourses to initiate new social housing cycles and could not keep up with other postsocialist countries of the Southeast Europe in the housing reforms (Tsenkova, 2009). International organizations supported only the social housing models established for resolving the problems of refugees and internally displaced persons (SIRP, UN-Habitat 2003-08), raised local capacities and helped in establishing local housing agencies, design, development, and monitored pilot housing
4
http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/public/PublicationView.aspx?pKey=41&pLevel=1&pubType=2&pubKey=3862, 16.
7
08-01-
projects. The final result, after several years of consultations, was the adoption of the National Law on Social Housing in 2009 and the Law on Housing and Maintenance of Buildings in late 2016.5 Without going into details, the legalization of informally built structures was the challenge for all Serbian governments since the late ’80s. The Planning and Building Law 2003 offered incentives for legalization, which showed the government’s good will to end the twenty–year-long period of informality. However, the practice became so common that the persons building constructions without the valid building permits were not interested or capable to pay for obtaining the legal documents. An improved set of rules appeared in the revision of the National Planning Law in 2009. The planners were obliged to behave according to one set of rules in planning urban development and a completely opposite set of rules in the process of legalization of already constructed structures. Contradictory, both sets of rules are contained in the same legal document. Serbian Government adopted additional Building Legalization Law in 2015, which applied to the property tax policies and rules and the “conversion of land” as instruments of implementation, in order to control and manage publicly owned, agricultural or previously privatized land. The effects of the last legal reform and legalization process are definitely going to be effective for regulation of the cadaster or taxation, but the consequences in urban, architectural, and esthetic sphere are irreparable. The character of the city, especially in the parts of massive informal constructions, has changed permanently and produced a specific type of urban and social divide. 3. The Iconic Architecture / Landscape Shaping the City Another important trend at the turn of the Millennium was the global capital in search of the host locations. The exemptions from zoning plans, rules and regulations were common, even welcomed by governments and authorities, not only in transitional Belgrade, but also in all the cities aiming to attract investments. Conservative procedures and rigid urban plans are the main reason the investors turn to less complicated cities and regions. Belgrade General Plans were usually revised once in 25 years, and Belgrade changed these planning documents five times between 2003 and 2016 due to the urgent need for new locations, new zoning resiliency, legislative change, and the 2008 economy crisis. Serbia changed the Planning and Building Law at least ten times between 2009 and 2015 for different reasons. One was the intention of the government to adapt the laws to the EU regulations (for example, by introducing energy efficiency in planning). The other was a need for stronger centralization and standardization of the plans, so as to make design and construction rules clear, transparent, and comprehensive for everyone, including the general public. That way, the government also tried to contribute to anticorruption process in the field of planning, but mainly to shorten and simplify the procedures and permitting processes.6 Global cities and states share the same
5 6
The Law on Housing and Maintenance of Buildings, “Official Gazette RS”, No.104/16
“Official Gazette RS”, No. 72/09, 81/09., 64/10, 24/11, 121/12, 42/13, 50/13, 98/13, 132/14 and145/14 8
dissatisfaction with planning laws and slow procedures for achieving economic development. In the last decade, regional and national governments such asthose of New South Wales, Australia, Canadian province Ontario, the Netherlands and the City of Milan are cyclically revising planning regulations and transfering authority between central and local levels (Mazza, 2007, Schatz&Piracha, 2013). The space for innovation and development projects for the cities in the Netherlands was restricted with too many fragmented laws, so the government announced the biggest national legal reform in the last 100 years (Schultz van Haegen, 2015) to ensure “flexible land uses, more rights to regional and local authorities, business and civil society.” (Nan at al., ed. 2015, p.8).
Fig.5. – The Port of Belgrade redevelopment Master Plan, Daniel Libeskind Studio & Gehl Architects, 2009 (upper left), Fig.6. – Winning design for the Beton Hala Centre, Sava Passenger Port, Sou Fujimoto Architects, 2011. Following the global trends of the late 20th century, the waterfront area in Belgrade has been studied since 2003 to develop a planning strategy. The first phase involved a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the two rivers within the city’s administrative boundaries, urging the planners to focus on the rivers and their waterfronts as the main resource for further city and metropolitan area development. Although its rivers are almost 150 km long, Belgrade has yet to integrate the riverbanks into the urban development vision, to plan, use, and promote the rivers for tourism, leisure, and transport, but also to open the waterfront areas for investments. The Inner City Development Master Plan (Ferencak & Gligorijevic, 2006) was prepared for the “Financial Times” Real Estate competition for the European Cities and Regions of the Future. The “Three Cores of Belgrade” concept promoted the main elements of the city’s identity: authentic natural core, three historic urban cores around it, and the spaces of industrial heritage and undeveloped waterfront. The history of central Belgrade and its dramatic landscape attractive for investments earned Belgrade the title of the South European City of the Future for 2006/07 and prompted an active campaign to attract developers. 9
Despite the global 2008 financial crisis, Belgrade remained an interesting destination for international projects for the following few years. The city hosted the international team of Daniel Libeskind Studio, NYC, and Ghel Architects, Copenhagen, who joined efforts to produce a Danube Port redevelopment Master plan in 2009. Local ABBA Consulting presented Sava Shipyard redevelopment project; the city organized a number of international architectural design competitions, such as the one for designing Beton Hala Centre in the old Sava Passenger Port (City of Belgrade and UPI, 2010). Most of these projects were the topics of the 2009 Revision of the Belgrade Master Plan 2021, which optimistically proposed better conditions for new developments: high-rise zones and raising density, enabling new greenfield developments along the ring roads and brownfield redevelopments in the inner city area. Only several months after the completion of the city’s General Master Plan, the consequences of the crisis made developers pause or allocate their investment projects, while the local planners turned their focus to new challenges: environmental threats, floods, climate change, carbon footprint, energy efficiency, etc. The need for new jobs became an issue as well, making planners think about the local economy as a vital constituent of sustainability. This was a chance for the professionals (Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade) to start implementing the City Development Strategy Action Plan and develop the idea of the iconic “Natural core of the city”. In this document, natural landscape, instead of compact city, became the main element of the city’s identity and, at the same time, a base for discussing environmental issues and sustainability as a part of the global paradigm change in city planning. The work started based on a common methodology, involving all possible stakeholders to gather impressions, ideas, knowledge, and visions related to the city’s important natural area surrounded by the urban matrix. Fortunately, the Natural Core, together with the Belgrade Fortress, remained protected and promoted as the main elements of Belgrade European Identity in all strategic and urban plans (2009-2016) that should be explored, developed and promoted with respect to natural and historic heritage and resources.
Fig.7. - The Aerial photo of the central part of the Natural Core - Great War Island and “Park Prijateljstva”, New Belgrade, from the UPI archives. Fig.8. - The best-case scenario: “Implement all”, City of Belgrade Natural Core Study, Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade, 2011. 10
The new development proposal for the Sava riverfront redevelopment appeared in 2012. The UAE based company “Eagle Hills” offered a partnership to the City of Belgrade and the Republic of Serbia for the “Belgrade Waterfront” Project at the Sava riverbank. Rehabilitation of the area know as the Sava Amphitheatre and the establishment of the new Belgrade downtown district have been considered in all the strategic plans of Belgrade since 1952. The ambitious “Belgrade Waterfront” project, the biggest building project the Balkan Peninsula has ever seen, offered a massive construction of housing, commercial, and business buildings, including the 200m high Tower on the Sava riverbank. The type, size, and shape of the project, as well as its economic and political significance, required the revision of the existing and the adaption of new urban and spatial plans on both the City and State level (The Revision of the General Plan of Belgrade and the Spatial Plan of the Special Purpose, 2014).7 Because of the overnight administrative changes and the Abu Dabi-type of urban design, the public considered the project exclusive and non–contextual.They also pointed out the financial risks and the way traditional urban fabric is ignored in the imposition of new identity of the city.
Figs. 8, 9. – Iconic buildings promoting city development projects: “Belgrade Port Master plan”, around 100 ha at the Danube Waterfront area, Daniel Libeskind Studio (ownership of the “Port of Belgrade”, 2009), and the Skyline of the “Belgrade Waterfront” project proposal, cc 150 ha on both sides of the Sava River, “Eagle Hills” company, presentation, 2016. Zoning exclusions in promotion of important real estate projects have been commonly justified by national interests in liberal economies and European cities (e.g. Milan, Mazza, 2007, pp.12-27). Similarly, the identity-driven design occurred in the Macedonian Capital strategic Project “Skoplje 2014” in the municipality “Centar”. Another municipality, Gazibaba, intended to improve the city’s identity and attract investments through a very different model: efficient administration, liberal zoning, and openness for international developments, which included unlimited hight of buildings as symbols of the new competitive Macedonia in the global investment market. It represented a different
7
“Official Gazette of the Citz of Belgrade”, No. 25/05, 34/07, 63/09 and 70/14, and Prostorni plan područja posebne namene uređenja dela priobalja grada Beograda - područje priobalja reke Save za projekat "Beograd na vodi", “Official Gazette RS”, No.7/15. 11
tool for achieving sovereignty and internationalism (WBG, C2C Urban Development Program, Skopje 2014). The recent experiences serve as an argument for the search of different planning systems, new instruments to implement strategic decisions, and management of new processes in times of crisis and uncertainty that mark the context of contemporary cities. These innovations should enable legal and acceptable actions of governments through efficient procedures and in accordance with clear, rational arguments. Only in that way can the societies adequately respond to demands of the new age and avoid precedents that ruin national planning systems and diminish the public and investors’ trust in the state and city legislation. In conclusion, it is not only the Balkan cities that are trying to achieve recognition and place in the world real estate market by offering locations and developments outside their traditional planning procedures and official zoning. The question is, are the cities abandoning their historic patterns, legacy or identity within specific urban context for a reason and, if so, would that be successful and profitable given that the real estate economic bubble gave only partial results in liberal economies of the West? This question is worth analyzing in the context of neoliberal theory and global attempts to find solutions in the new, sustainable, green, circular economies that are largely unexplored in the underdeveloped Balkan region. 4. On Cities, Planning and Strategies There are numerous definitions of planning, but Frederiksen (2015, p.4) offers a new, modern, and comprehensive one that supports a positive development process of villages, settlements and cities. It comprises of “...creating good policies and practical solutions for managing development, economic development support and the access to jobs, providing public services for a growing population, environmental protection, and sustainable construction, possibilities to adapt to climate change, and renewal of territories after conflicts and natural disasters.”
Fig. 10. – What is planning? Source: Delivering Better Development, London: RTPI & Global Planners Network (pdf). P.4. published 11-4-2015 at http://www.rtpi.org.uk/briefing-room/newsreleases/2015/november/events-and-new-vital-guide-to-planning-help-rtpi-to-celebrate-world-townplanning-day /accessed 11-8-2015)
12
In the first half of the 20th century, good policies for the management of urban development implied structural urban plans. British legislation questioned this model and separated it from action plans in order to shift towards strategic spatial planning, which became dominant in the following decades for solving the issues within the rising neoliberal culture (Kaufman, Jacobs, 1987; Bryson, Roering, 1987, cit. Mazza 2010). Professional and academic circles were discontent with classical, but enthusiastic about strategic plans, estimating that it might be the only form of planning worth of attention (Faludi, Van der Valk, 1994, Lindblom, Kent). At the same time, strategic planning also came under criticism, partly because of ungrounded expectations and optimism or inefficiency in implementation. The success of strategic plan depends on three kinds of relations between: politics and planning, government and management, and space and socio-economic development (Mazza, 2010, p.1). Although the main goals of planning are in the economic and spatial sphere, the main effects of strategic planning are mostly political and social. Nevertheless, it is commonly held that urban planning will exist as long as people live in the cities. The widespread high level of urbanization impose fast decision making but also thoughtful and specific development programs according to the highest values of the society and its main priorities (Harris, 2015). UN Habitat adopted The International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning (2015) to help cities and local governments achieve economic, social, cultural, and environmental goals through the development of spatial visions, strategies, and plans or through implementation of sets of principles, instruments, and procedures.8 The first planning principle is that planning is not merely a technical tool but an integrative and participatory decision-making process that includes common vision, general development strategy, and national, regional, and urban policies. It is also the key component of “innovative managing paradigm” in promoting local democracy, participation and inclusion, transparency and responsibility vital for ensuring sustainable urbanization and spatial quality (2015.p.2.). In that context, the question on government and governance arises. The focus in strategic planning shifted from problem solving - by allocating resources to particular fields of society - to managing - a capacity to start and explore creative possibilities and mobilization of various actors with different, often confronted interests, goals, and strategies (Albrechts, 2005, p.271.cit Mazza, 2010, p.5). The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Network of Global Planning Organizations agreed that the integrated development plans and strategies should force investment decisions and support “synergies and interactions of various fields” on the city level, while urban plans should contribute to protection of naturally and culturally sensitive areas and the regulation of the market (Frederiksen, 2015).
8
Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-Habitat, pp.2. UN Habitat Governing Council resolution 25/6, accessed 06-23-2015. 13
The cities, however, are no longer only a topic of their nations and states, but an important factor of global development and existence. City leaders also show better understanding and adaptability to changes than the state governments. The UN Habitat Time to Think Urban (2013) outlines seven key fields for ensuring sustainable development of cities. The first refers to the city legislations, land, and management, and the second to urban planning and design. The third necessary component for the long-term prosperity is a financial plan that provides investments for strategic projects (Clos, 2015).9 The continuum of city planning is indisputable if it is intelligent and open to the needs of future generations (Nikelsen, Foster, 2012) or if it takes into account the surprises of future times instead of focusing on rigid, determined cities of today (Senet, 2006, Ibelings, 2008). Planning processes, though complex in nature, became extremely demanding due to the recent geo-political changes. Anticipating the needs of people and establishing development goals and the future visions of the cities are becoming complex processes in periods of “big waves” (Avarez, 2013, p.551), in which contextually defined long-term change is the key characteristic of cities and regions. In that context, a difficulty in planning would be to fulfill the expectations of governments and citizens. The success of cities cannot be evaluated only by measuring growth, position in the market or economic criteria. It also depends on the urban structure and its openness to organize the life of citizens (Rykwert, 2004, p.8). Achieving better “quality of life” in cities requires broader knowledge from different disciplines and not only from urban and regional studies. In that sense, “geography of happiness” shows the importance of the place we live in for feeling content with all the other elements such as income, job, health, environment, etc. (Gilbert, cit Florida, 2009). Another recent research shows that the long-term health of a city depends on the balanced regulatory system, modern infrastructure, high quality of life, and talents (Florida, 2004, Tores, 2011). The UN Habitat started The World Urban Campaign in 2013 to achieve the common urban Sustainable Development Goals (SDG, 2015) through joint efforts, knowledge, and best practices of the world’s city associations. The 193 member countries of the UN adopted the document on Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 and The New Urban Agenda in 2016 as the common framework for poverty reduction, sustainable development of settlements and cities, and the role of planning in the fast urbanization processes for the next 20 years. Sustainable urbanization also expanded from the professional framework, scientific fields and organizations to all the sectors and all social groups. The project “Massive small” (Campbell, 2015) started as an independent, open organization that brought artists, researchers, writers, publishers, graphic and web designers together to deal with the challenges of achieving a better, more adequate or a “new normal” urbanism in the complex, informal, and local world. They gathered around the idea that small contributions and higher resillience are possible in the cities locally sensitive to global problems. Through a necessary change
9
Accessed from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/building_better_cities, 11-26-2015. 14
of thinking and acting, new paradigms can be imposed based on the understanding of historical and not only of current processes and needs of the cities. 5. Conslussions and recommendations based on the transitional experience of Belgrade A need to question the traditional role of planning in dynamic socio-economic conditions emerged in the Serbian planning theory during the ’90s, announcing the adjustment to social transition from the centrally planned to liberal ecconomy. Apart from the four legal circles of planning and construction regulations (in 1995, 2003, 2009, 2014) and several revisions in implementation details, the substantial change of the system from traditional to proces based strategic planning has never taken place. The Serbian planners could not efficiently respond to the new requirements at the turn of the Millenium, regardless of whether these came from the political, economic, social, or environmental field. Trapped within the common practice, Serbian planning profession failed to keep up with the changing social framework and, therefore, was partly responsible for the quality and inefficiency of planning, be it in practice, administration, or academia. Neverheless, there is a sufficient capacity for change thanks to the rich history and quality of the planning practice and its broad education, along with the rising dissatisfaction with the repetition of traditional inefficient methods and practices. The repetition of patterns in planning can be analyzed through the psychosocial dynamics theories. Conservative forms of planning and exaggerated expectations from planners seem to be the necessary components of the transitional process. The transitional „space and time” and conservative practice, creating a „cover”, form a safe ambiance for the subject of transition (e.g. planning) in the process of change (Winnicott, 1951, cit. Bridger 2001). Another part of responsibility falls on the governments, since urbanism belongs mainly to the public domain, from policy making to creating legislations, planning iniciatives and procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to raise awareness among the authorities that planning is de facto managing the urban processes in which the change is not only necessary, but also beneficial (Marvillas, 1998). Significant national and international bibliography, planning policies, new findings about urban processes, best European cities’ practices, and the long tradition of Belgrade planning make a solid base for authorities to start a formal transition from traditional to strategic project base planning. Strategy making models and methods have been studied in Serbia not only in the planning field (Lazarević Bajec, Stojkov, Vujošević, since 1993) but also in the ecconomic development based on organization managment (Đuričin, Janošević, 2005, Lončar, Dobrilović, 2007), which includes integrative development strategies of Serbian cities, metodologically and financially supported by international organizations (GIZ, WB, or UNDP). Planners cannot change the environment of cities, but they can contribute to better adjustment to the rapidly changing conditions. Local governments have to be capable of innovative and creative 15
thinking when overcoming transition, whether economic, social, political, or environmental. “Changes and progress are very rarelly gifts from above. They come out of struggles from bellow” (Chomsky, 2012). In times of uncertainty that open complex topics of intetegrative city development, the only way to reach progress is to make a good base and move forward. (www.massivesmall.com). Balkan cities have to develop skills, practice different models, and use instruments to adapt and adjust to the changing environment (Bridger 2001, p.218, Spero, 2006). Because of the old patterns in planning, they lag behind the European cities of similar size. Instead of being involved in arbitrary and cosmetic legislative changes, the governments should act upon substantial change of plans and regulations. If strategic planning is one posible solution, different experiences of European cities can be succesfully applied to regional cities including Belgrade. It is necessery to choose an appropriate model that can bring innovation, but also provide continuity with respect to tradition and specific local conditions. The model should be embedded into the system of national regulations, connected to the fields of organization, management, and finance of local communities, as well as to regional development and spatial planning. Every city is authentic in its historic, political, legal, and social environment, so universal rules and patterns cannot apply (Davis, 2002, Mazza, 2010, Lücher, 2012, p.89). Theoretically, professional planning should be led by norms of best professional practice, general principles of fairness, efficiency, accountability, and technical excellence defined for each particular situation. Therefore, in everyday practice, the planners face many dilemmas about and choices between the governmental regulations and relying on the market, equity and efficiency, comprehensive planning and incrementalism, “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches, utopian and pragmatic, public interest and pluralism of intersts, economic development and environmental protection, etc. (Davis, 2002). The planning system should match a particular city’s history, culture, identity or a chosen development vision in order to respond to the question: in what kind of a city do we want to live and communicate, and how do we want to manage the city? The system should enable and not hinder the development (Harvy, 2004). However, the evaluations of the new cities’ strategies after the 2008 crisis show a downside of the open, strategic plan and indicate the need for new ways and ideas, which offer Belgrade and other regional cities to choose a moderate and reasonable authentic model. Such a model should embody a combination that stimulates creative, innovative thinking and participation. Moreover, it should enable safety for governments and administration to respond adequately to continuous demands of everyday life and exceptional offers through well-known, common planning instruments. In addition, and according to the New Urban Agenda, Belgrade and other regional cities seeking for efficient development planning according to a common and complient vision should choose an acceptable model and involve all interested parties and actors in the process of city planning.
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Amendments to Master Plan of Belgrade 2021/2 (“Official Journal of the City of Belgrade”, No. 63/09). Blagojević, Lj. (2007), Novi Beograd: osporeni modernizam, Beograd, Zavod za udžbenike, Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture grada, Arhitektonski fakultet Beograd; Darlington, T. (2000) The Preoccupations of the Citizen, Reflections from the OPUS Listening Post. Organizational and Social Dynamics 1, London: Karnac Books, pp.94-122. Davis, D., Keyes, L. & Susskind, L. 11.201 Gateway: Planning Action, Fall 2002. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare), http://ocw.mit.edu (accessed 12-20-2015) License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. Davis, E.D. & Libertun de Duren, L. (2011) Cities and Sovereignty: Identity in urban spaces, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (ISBN 978-0-253-22274-9). Foster. N (2012) A Dream Grows in Copenhagen. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/business/energy-environment/in-new-copenhagen-suburbs-aimis-sustainable-living.html?_r=0, published on 03-05-2012, accessed on 07-29- 2015. Gligorijevic, Z at al.(2008) Financing metropolitan governments in Transitional countries, Case Study Belgrade, Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade; Lazarević Bajec, N. & Ralević, M. (eds.) (1996) Strategija urbanizacije u uslovima neizvesnosti. Edicija Urbanologija, 3, Beograd: Arhitektonski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. (ISBN 86-8009527-3). Lücher, R. & Merk, E. (2012) Re-thinking the mixed city. In Urban energies, Position on the policy board on the National urban development policy, Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, pp. 89-94. Marvillas, R (1998) Urban Development in the Mediterranean, Strategic Plan as a Way of Urban Management, Barcelona: Area Metropolitana de Barcelona, p. 7 (ISBN 84-930080-0-1). “Massive Small”, Ideas, Tools & Tactics to build Urban Society, http://www.massivesmall.com, (accessed 11-26-2015) Mazza, L. (2007) Milan’s Strategies. In Greca, P. at all (eds.) Urban Trialogues: Co-productive ways to relate visioning and strategic urban projects, ISOCARP, New Goff, Ghent, pp.12-27. (ISBN 97890-755-24-529). Mazza, L. (2010) Strategic Planning and Republicanism. In Vujosevic, M. (ed.) SPATIUM International Review [Online] No. 22, UDC 338.481.31, p.9 Popis izbeglica i ratom ugrozenih lica u Saveznoj Republici Jugoslaviji, UNHCR Visoki komesarijat UN za izbeglice, Beograd 1996, published on http://www.kirs.gov.rs/docs/statistika/Popis%20Izbeglica%20i%20Drugih%20Ratom%20Ugrozenih% 20Lica%20u%20SRJ%201996.pdf accessed 01-22-2011, pp.29,30. Registracija izbeglica u Srbiji (2001) Biro za humanitarnu pomoćEvropske unije, Beograd, published on http://www.kirs.gov.rs/docs/statistika/Registracija%20izbeglica%20u%20Srbiji%202001%20(martapril).pdf, accessed 01-22-2017, p.6. Rykwert, J. (2004) The Seduction of Place: the city in the twenty-first century. New York: Pantheon Books, a division of Random House, Inc., pp.7, 260. (ISBN: 0-19-280554-1). Sančanin, M. (2008) Kapitulacija zagrebačkog urbanizma. In Kovačević, L.at al. (eds.) Operacija: grad, Priručnik za život u neoliberalnoj stvarnosti. Zagreb: Savez za centar za nezavisnu kulturu i mlade, Multimedijalni institut, Platforma 9,81- Institut za istraživanja o arhitekturi, BLOK – Lokalna baza za osvježavanje kulture, SU Klubtura/ Clubture, pp.148, 149. (ISBN 978-953-95317-2-8). 17
Schatz, L. & Piracha, A. (2013) Investigating the motivations, rethoric and controversy surrounding recent planning reforms in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada. In Colman, J. & Gossop, C. (eds.) Frontiers of Planning: Visionary futures for human settlements, China: ISOCARP review 09, pp. 97-109. (ISBN 978-94-90354-21-3). Scott, J.A. (2011) Emerging Cities of the third wave, Cities, 15 (3-4), Oxfordshire: Routledge Journals, Taylor&Francis, pp. 289-321. (ISBN 9780415675116). (DOI:10.1080/13604813.2011.595569) Schilling, J. & Mallach, A. (2012) Cities in Transition - A Guide for Practicing Planners, FAICP, APA, Planning Advisory Service. (ISBN: 9781611900088). Sennett, R. (2006) Otvoreni grad. In Kovačević, L., Medak, T., Milat, P., Sančanin, M., Valentić, T. & Vuković, V. (eds.) (2008) Operacija: grad, Priručnik za život u neoliberalnoj stvarnosti. Zagreb: Savez za centar za nezavisnu kulturu imlade, Multimedijalni institute, Platforma 9,81- Institut za istraživanja o arhitekturi, BLOK –Lokalna baza za osvježavanje culture, SU Klubtura/ Clubture, pp.105, 112. (ISBN 978-953-95317-2-8). (Urban Age 2006, Berlin). The Statistical Yearbook of Belgrade 2015, City of Belgrade Secretariat for Administration Sector for statistics, SYB–15, pp 72, 75, Stojkov, B. (ed.) (1998) Strategija razvoja i uređenja naselja u novim uslovima, zbornik. Beograd: Udruženje urbanista Srbije, 711(497.11) (082), p.6. Vale, L.J. (2008) Designed Capitals After World War Two: Chandigarh and Brasília. In Architecture, power, and national identity. New York: Routledge, pp.121-145. (ISBN: 978-0-415-95515-7). Vujošević, M. (2004) The search for a new development planning/policy mode: problems of expertise in the transition period. Spatium, No.10, 12-18 (DOI: 10.2298/SPAT0410012V), pp. 16, 17. Available at: http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/issue.aspx?issueid=1097. Vujošević, M., Zeković, S. & Maričić, T. (2012) Post-Socialist Transition in Serbia and Its Unsustainable Path In European Planning Studies Vol. 20, Iss. 10, 2012, available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09654313.2012.713330. (Accessed on 04-23-2016).
18
